Skip to main content
Glama
Operamatix

zoho-books-mcp

by Operamatix

zoho_attach_document

Attach receipts, bills, or journal documents to Zoho Books records via multipart upload, using base64 file content or server file path.

Instructions

Attach a document (receipt / source doc) to a Zoho Books record via multipart upload — e.g. an expense receipt (path '/expenses/{id}/receipt', field 'receipt'), a bill attachment (path '/bills/{id}/attachment', field 'attachment'), or a journal attachment (path '/journals/{id}/attachment', field 'attachment'). Provide the file EITHER as file_content (base64 — for docs you hold in-context / received in chat) plus file_name (filename WITH extension, e.g. 'invoice.pdf'; Zoho detects the type from it), OR as file_path (a file on the server host). Allowed types: gif, png, jpeg, jpg, bmp, pdf, xls, xlsx, doc, docx. Gated by ZOHO_ALLOW_WRITES.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYesAttach endpoint after /books/v3, e.g. /expenses/12345/receipt or /journals/678/attachment.
queryNo
file_nameNoFilename WITH extension for the upload, e.g. 'receipt.pdf'. Required when using file_content.
file_pathNoAlternative to file_content: absolute path to a file on the server host.
field_nameNoMultipart form field name. Default 'receipt' (use 'attachment' for journals/bills).
file_contentNoBase64-encoded file bytes (a 'data:...;base64,' prefix is tolerated). Use this for docs you hold in-context. Requires file_name.
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the multipart upload nature, permission gating, and file type restrictions. It does not detail side effects (e.g., success/error responses or idempotency), but for a straightforward attachment tool, this is acceptable.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise but informative. It front-loads the purpose, then gives examples, then details input options. Every sentence adds value. Could be slightly more structured but overall efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given six parameters and no output schema, the description covers essential aspects: constructing the path, file input methods, and field name. It does not describe return values or error handling, which would improve completeness, but the core usage is adequately covered.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is high (83%), so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond schema: explains path construction patterns, differentiates file_content vs file_path, and notes the default field_name. This enriches parameter understanding.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action: 'Attach a document to a Zoho Books record via multipart upload'. It provides specific examples (expense receipt, bill attachment, journal attachment) and references endpoint patterns, making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools which are generic CRUD or other operations.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use file_content vs file_path, lists allowed file types, and notes it's gated by ZOHO_ALLOW_WRITES (permissions context). It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but sibling tools are sufficiently different that confusion is unlikely.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Operamatix/zoho-books-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server